← All Phrases

“opportunity of being heard”

Natural JusticeAudi Alteram PartemAudi Alteram Partem22,508 judgments

The decision most relied on for opportunity of being heard is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on opportunity of being heard

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi
334 ITR 262 · 2011 · Supreme Court
211
citing judgments

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT
119 ITR 996 · 1979 · Supreme Court
205
citing judgments

An assessment cannot be reopened under Section 147/148 based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer on material already considered during the original assessment, clarifying the scope of 'escaped assessment'.

Judgments citing opportunity of being heard

Ms Kalamandir Jewellers Ltd., Surat vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1069/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Uke, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37

Assessing Officer shall confine the enquiry strictly to the above limited aspects and decide the issue in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5.5 The ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Ground ... assessee with regard to the allowability of the amounts under section 43B of the Act, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6.5 Accordingly, the ground No.3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal

Shri Digamber Jain Rewatat Sidhyoday Siddh Kshetra Trust, Nemawar District Dewas vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Aayakar Bhawan, Arear Hiils Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 393/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12A

circumstances of the case quite erroneous, unjustified improper, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. That the appellant has not been allowed proper opportunity of being heard. The appellant could not comply with notices fixing the date of hearing ... appear or furnish details as the notices were not served on the correct and operative email address, resulting in denial of a proper opportunity of being heard. The Counsel submitted that the action of the CIT(Exemptions) is in violation of principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed

Mahendra Kumar Pandya, Indore vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Ind, Indore

ITA 343/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 90Section 91

without jurisdiction, it is based on incorrect interpretation of law and without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard, moreover the facts have also been incorrectly construed. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining

Kamal Singh, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

ITA 284/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Solanki, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 54bSection 54f

erred in confirming the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer of Rs. 30,50,000/- under provisions

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

file for de- novo adjudication in accordance with law. The learned CIT(Appeals) shall decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all submissions and evidences that may be placed on record. 11. The assessee is directed to cooperate

Jastej Gorowara, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

file for de- novo adjudication in accordance with law. The learned CIT(Appeals) shall decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering all submissions and evidences that may be placed on record. 11. The assessee is directed to cooperate

Kunal Vyas, Indore vs. ITO 4(1), Ind, Main Building, Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 201/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Sijariya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 148Section 68Section 69

considered view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after examining all supporting documents and explanations that may be furnished. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file

Shri Digamber Jain Yuvak Sangh, Indore, M.P vs. The NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal C.A.& Shri Pankaj Mogra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151

earlier years and donor details, and the same should be examined afresh by the Assessing Officer in accordance with law after granting due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. Accordingly, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration limited

D. S. Foundation, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 589/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur23 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM, आयकरअपील सं. / ITA Nos.588 & 589/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear :2024-25 | D.S. Foundation | बनाम | CIT Exemption | |------------------------------------|------|---------------| | Office No. 20 Shrinath Mall, | Vs. | Jaipur | | Near Bajrang Garh Krishna Ganj, | | | | Ajmer | | | | स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAETD 3273 C | | | | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent | निधर्धारित

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A

registration under section 12(1)(ac)(vi) as the objectives of the trust are social welfare, helping needy, general public utility etc. 9.No opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is beyond the principle of natural justice. 10.The cancellation of provisional registration ... just and fair as there was not any single opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee. The honourable Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration, without considering the fact that the assessee has already submitted all the requisite details as and when required by the honourable commissioner

D. S. Foundation, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 588/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur23 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A

registration under section 12(1)(ac)(vi) as the objectives of the trust are social welfare, helping needy, general public utility etc. 9.No opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is beyond the principle of natural justice. 10.The cancellation of provisional registration ... just and fair as there was not any single opportunity of being heard was granted to the assessee. The honourable Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration, without considering the fact that the assessee has already submitted all the requisite details as and when required by the honourable commissioner

Swa. Savitribai Bhikalal Agrawal Memorial Trust, Nandurbar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1576/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1575 & 1576/Pun/2025 Swa Savitribai Bhikalal Vs. Cit (Exemption), Agrawal Memorial Trust, Pune Nandurbar, Maharashtra – 425426 Pan : Aavts8830R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul NaharFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Court in the case St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society (20023) 263 ITR 377 (Patna) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that “opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine ... claim. The impugned orders passed by ld.CIT(E) deprived the appellant trust from providing reasonable opportunity and therefore the appellant deserves an opportunity of being heard. 9. We therefore set aside the impugned findings of ld.CIT(E) and remand the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file

Swa. Savitribai Bhikalal Agrawal Memorial Trust, Visarwadi, Navapur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant trust are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1575/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1575 & 1576/Pun/2025 Swa Savitribai Bhikalal Vs. Cit (Exemption), Agrawal Memorial Trust, Pune Nandurbar, Maharashtra – 425426 Pan : Aavts8830R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul NaharFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Court in the case St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society (20023) 263 ITR 377 (Patna) wherein the Hon’ble Court held that “opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective and same should not be empty formalities, it should not be a paper opportunity, the doctrine ... claim. The impugned orders passed by ld.CIT(E) deprived the appellant trust from providing reasonable opportunity and therefore the appellant deserves an opportunity of being heard. 9. We therefore set aside the impugned findings of ld.CIT(E) and remand the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file

Vinod Bhandari, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle 4(2), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 463/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer During Assessment Proceedings & Therefore The Issue May Be Restored To The File Of Assessing Officer.

Section 250Section 69C

Officer. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23.12.2025 (Rajesh Kumar) Accountant Member

Rameshwar Finvest Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2107/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 3(3) Rameshwar Finvest Private Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, Limited Santil Palli, 110, Eastern 111, Park Street, Kolkata- Metropolitan Bypass, Opposite Vs. 700016, West Bengal Ruby, Kasba, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr1053N Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

which is proposed to be used for the purpose of assessment, the ld. AO has to give any opportunity of being heard qua the same to the assessee but the same has not been granted to the assessee. Therefore, the mandate of Section

Sree Ramakrishna Prema Bihar, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward 1(3), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1986/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income qua the application of funds which inadvertently shown in the wrong column while punching the return of income online. Consequently, the AO-CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of JAO with the direction to decide the sam

Section 12ASection 250

With these observations, we restore these appeals to the file of JAO with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 3. In result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23.12.2025 (Rajesh Kumar) (Pradip Kumar

Sree Ramakrishna Prema Bihar, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption) Ward 1(3), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income qua the application of funds which inadvertently shown in the wrong column while punching the return of income online. Consequently, the AO-CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of JAO with the direction to decide the sam

Section 12ASection 250

With these observations, we restore these appeals to the file of JAO with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, 3. In result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23.12.2025 (Rajesh Kumar) (Pradip Kumar

Roshan Agarwal, Sikkim vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Gangtok

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1280/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Assessing Officer As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Were Passed Ex-Parte Without The Representation Of The Assessee. Therefore, In The Interests Of Substantive Justice & Fair Play, The Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of Assessing Officer.

Section 250

Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of AO with a direction to decide the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23.12.2025 (Rajesh Kumar) Accountant Member Dated

Rajah Annamalaipuram Sri Iyyappaswami Temple Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2866/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c)where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... otherwise of any specified violation; (ii)pass an order in writing, cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violations have taken place

Rajah Annamalaipuram Sri Iyyappaswami Temple Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2865/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

satisfied, pass an order in writing rejecting such application and also cancelling its registration after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (c)where the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period ... otherwise of any specified violation; (ii)pass an order in writing, cancelling the registration of such trust or institution, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, for such previous year and all subsequent previous years, if he is satisfied that one or more specified violations have taken place

Ghatkopar Laxminagar Sauli Co Op Hsg Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6708/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us Is That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Disposed Of The Appeal Ex Parte, Without Considering The Written Submissions & Paper Book Duly Filed By The Assessee On The E-Filing Portal. Apart From Challenging The Validity Of Reopening Under Section 147, The Assessee Had Also Raised Grounds On Merits Against Various Additions, All Of Which Have Remained Unadjudicated.

Section 147

fresh adjudication. The learned CIT(A) shall consider all the written submissions, documents, and evidences filed by the assessee, afford due opportunity of being heard, and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 5 Ghatkopar Laxminagar Sauli Co-op Hsg. Society Ltd. 7. The assessee is also directed